What is the best cheap but beautiful 50mm there is?

Some great suggestions and advice. Please keep it coming if you have an opinion.

I'm hoping to get the Canon 1.8 as my main 50mm for general use. Whilst I realise that there are many different focal lengths I could/should get before buying too many of the same focal length the reason I'd like another ( cheapish ) 50mm is to have one that provides a very different signature to the Canon.

I have always tended towards 35 & 50mm for most of my photography so other than for work, when I use SLR's and a great many different lenses, I'm happy with those two lengths for now, maybe a 21mm at some point. Maybe... maybe(!) a 75 or 90 in the distant future but I really don't need that kind of lens for my personal photos as I don't really do portraits and I either get close to the subject or like to show plenty of the environment around the subject.

PS - Wildwildwes, that's very kind of you to say, I hope that I can take some photos with my, eventual, new 50mm that may impress you somewhat.
 
If put the stress on cheap (meaning affordable, not qualitywise!) then you should have a look at the Industar-61.

You can get those for almost nothing and they perform really well!

(The same is true for the Jupiter-12, if you're looking for a 35mm wide angle.)
 
If we stick to idea of "cheap but beautiful" it is indeed hard to compete with Soviet Sonnar and some Tessar copies. Their main weak point is often subpar mechanics, while optical part (given the good condition of glass) really delivers. Saying that anything Leitz prewar matches or tops a 1.5 sonnar or it's Soivet (or Japanese) copy is a wishful thinking. Sample images from Summarit I've seen so far also don't have anything over them.

So while the advantage of recent Leica optics is rather obvious, if we get down to 1950s stuff it isn't that clear.
 
FrankS - Fear not, I'm obviously in the minority here. While I'm not a practical person, having more than one 50mm is just over the top for me.

Liam (Rogue Designer) pointed out to me that the Canon 50mm f/1.2 is better wide open than stopped down, in contrast to most other lenses f/1.4 and slower. This may be a good reason to have more than one 50mm.

My point was just that if one doesn't have a 21mm yet, why get another fast 50? Fill in the gaps before you get duplicates!

ourman - I think the 50mm f/1.8 should fill your requirements. Someone on some forum somewhere once pointed out that 50mm f/1.7/1.8/2 were often the best lenses in any given lineup. Reason? They knew that when the camera was tested, it would most likely be tested with that lens. In other words, that company would be judged based on the quality of that lens, since it is the kit lens. It is one of the few areas where we photographers get something for nothing.

Get the 50/1.8 and save the big bucks for something that demands it.

NickTrop tactfully pointed out that many fixed-lens rangefinders had excellent 50mm lenses. This might be worth considering, if you don't already have a good FLR. Carry your interchangeable lens rangefinder with the 35mm mounted, and use the FLR for its 50. Ones with good, fast 40-50mm lenses: Olympus 35RD, 35SP, Yashica Electro & Lynx series, Canonet GIII, Konica Auto S2.

That is a slightly heavier option than just buying a 50mm, but going between the two bodies will be much quicker than changing lenses. (as many a pro would tell you, and which you probably already know, as a pro yourself)
 
I've never used any other RF 50mm than the Nokton 1.5. But it beats every SLR 50mm I've ever shot with.
 

Attachments

  • prettyinpink.jpg
    prettyinpink.jpg
    91.1 KB · Views: 0
  • broinlaw.jpg
    broinlaw.jpg
    85 KB · Views: 0
  • yard.jpg
    yard.jpg
    39.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited by a moderator:
One more Nokton shot...
 

Attachments

  • fafa.jpg
    fafa.jpg
    108.9 KB · Views: 0
Jeremy Z said:
NickTrop tactfully pointed out that many fixed-lens rangefinders had excellent 50mm lenses. This might be worth considering, if you don't already have a good FLR. Carry your interchangeable lens rangefinder with the 35mm mounted, and use the FLR for its 50. Ones with good, fast 40-50mm lenses: Olympus 35RD, 35SP, Yashica Electro & Lynx series, Canonet GIII, Konica Auto S2.
Click to expand...

Jeremy - I've heard and seen some good things done with the Yashica Electro, a camera with a character all of its own by many accounts. One I'm certainly intrigued by.

To be honest, once I've bagged a Canon 50mm, I will only look at paying 'decent' money on a 21mm, make unknown as yet though possibly a CV. However the second 50mm of which I'm discussing options on is one which I'm hoping only to spend Jupiter 8 kind of money on so it would be a cost I could easily absorb without feeling that I've made an 'either or' decision on which lens.

I had the good fortune to be lent a Nokton CV 50 1.5 by Gid for a very good length of time which I absolutely loved. Though I did feel it was quite large and so have decided to go for the Canon instead at a lesser cost.

It's only really since being an RFF'er that I've really been intrigued by the differences in lenses - normally I just try and get the best I can afford to suit my work and rely on the fact you need to be able to get 'the picture' rather than lens qualities and characteristics...now with all these brilliant optics around I may be having my head turned. Still, whats a boy to do?
 
Fuhgetabout ebay. Buy the late model Canon 50/1.8 in the RFF classifieds. Right here. Right now. If the newer lens is as good as the earlier all chrome version I once owned (my first LTM lens and stupidly sold), it's a keeper.
 
Last edited:
I'm now feeling like an utter fool. I've allowed myself to bid a ludicrous amount on the Canon 1.8. Damn that auction site!! Or rather myself for being an idiot.

Maybe there'll be someone more silly than myself in the next nine or ten hours...but I doubt it!

I'll check out Summarit prices now and see whats around but I think I'm going to be lumbered with an over the odds Canon...at least I'll have a decent lens, and take my rangefinder lens tally above one.
 
I once had a thread with a comparison of over fifteen 50mm lenses. Many of the lenses mentioned above by RFF members are compared "unscientifically". I like my Canon 50mm/1.2 a lot, and it is really a bargain priced lens for what it can deliver. Another beauty is the Summicon rigid first edition which is not as contrasty as the recent Summicron lenses and it can be bought for lower prices. Do not ignore the Nikkor 50mm/2.0. It is very sharp and not costly. A Brain Sweeney shimmed J-3 will be the best for your money. Roland will insist on a Canon 50mm/1.5 to capture the Sonnar look, but the J-3 can do that too. The J-8 is also a bargain lens and it is wonderful.

I forgot one of the best quality deal: the Canon 50mm/1.8.

As you can see, it pretty much comes down to personal preference and cost and availability at a certain cost.


Raid
 
Last edited:
raid said:
Roland will insist on a Canon 50mm/1.5 to capture the Sonnar look, but the J-3 can do that too.
Click to expand...

Yes :D

There are very few J-3s available that will "capture the Sonnar look" at both close-up and infinity, wide-open, Raid. This is also true for some "Sweenyfied" J-3s. I have one of those working ones, my ZK 50/1.5, but honestly, to me it seems too fragile when compared to the Canon, so I always end up using the Canon. Of course, for portraits like in your test suite, you don't need infinity focus.

Whenever 50mm lenses come up, I miss a discussion on 40mm lenses. Yes, 40 is wider, but it's still "normal". And more importantly,
the typical 40mm lenses out there have .7 - .8m minimal focus distance, compared to around 1m for the classic 50mm. In other
words, even if the FOV is different, you can make the same photos with a 40 than with most classic 50s, just get a bit closer.
The 40/2 Summicron and M-Rokkor, and the 40 Nokton are outstanding value for the money.

Best,

Roland.
 
I like the Canon 50/1.2 in low light use, it's soft but very attractive. Not so wild about it narrower than about f4 in better light, where it gives up too much detail for me and has pretty flat contrast. A very nice lens though, if you can find one for not too much money (I paid about £300 for mine, but I have no idea what the going rate in the UK is, and I got mine from a dealer, so paid a bit extra for the privilege). Amazingly well made too, a hefty chunk.

Ian
 
I put lot of thought into whether to go down the route of the Canon 1.2 but decided I just didn't do enough low light to need it. Hence going for the 1.8. I'm intrigued by the reputed softness, this is really why I started the thread. I would like to have my general purpose 50mm which is pretty good throughout the range and then something like an old uncoated elmar for those soft and dreamy photos - though at a relatively low cost, as suggested in the title!
 
If you're looking for dreamy, a Summar may be best. The Canon 50f1.8 is far from dreamy. It'll give your modern lens a run for the money.
 
Last edited:
Frank - The Canon 1.8 will be my general purpose 50mm ( when i get it!) and then I'll have a gap for the 'dreamy' older lens which may be the elmar, summar or whatever seems to be the best option for both price, condition and characteristics.

Do you have any gallery images taken with your Summar?
 
39 minutes to go before I find out if I've bought myself a Canon 50mm 1.8.I hate this auction site, not just because I think I've bid over the odds but also because it gets my otherwise latent gambling desires going
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom